How to Treat the Feeble Minded

From around 1840 to 1970, people who were diagnosed as 'feeble-minded' in Cambridge (UK) were confined in the Fulbourn Mental Hospital. Especially dim young girls who had a baby out of wedlock. And they were buried there, as rejects from the local community. It was something to be ashamed of.

How do we treat, today, the less-capable?

We spam them with deceptive pricing - so that they get a worse deal. We follow up purchases with 'would you like to buy insurance for that' - which, for consumer goods, is a truly rotten deal. We idolize baubles and meaningless celebrity, for them. And litter their lives with reminders of lust, fattening morsels, and addictive substances. To fund such consumption, we offer easy 'consumer-credit' - which only serves to make their life even more expensive. And, again, penalises the lazy, the ill-informed, and the incompetent.

Why is it that most smokers are among the poor in our society? (A habit costing GBP £5 per day here - when benefits are about GBP £100 per week). Is it, perhaps, because we offer them smoking as something that is 'manly', 'sexy', 'tough', or as an (illusory) way of feeling better about their lives?

Given the right attitude to commercial success, and to commercialism in society, is it any wonder that one can make 30% of a society obese (and 70%[?] overweight)[as now in the UK]?

As Michael Sandel points out there is a lot of virtue that cannot be measured by commercial success, and as Robert Sirico says there is a lot of virtue in rewarding that which is frugal and satisfies peoples choices. But there is more.

All of us are unable to keep more than a few of thoughts in mind at any one time, or of safely controlling motor vehicles at speeds much over 60 miles per hour, obsessed with sex and plumage, and weak and slow. Cetaceans are in all probability a lot smarter.

Given the environment of unfettered commercialism that we seem to think is best - with its rewards for 'marketing' and 'selling', as opposed to 'being good', or actually disseminating accurate information - is it any wonder that the poor are among the most resentful in our society?

Their young men come around to our houses and smash up the place trying to steal a few gadgets. Or do thousands of pounds damage to our offices when stealing a couple of computers they might get GBP £20 for from their drug dealing 'associates'. They blame scapegoats - and so often vote for hate and populist measures. (Like blaming bankers for crises of unpayable debts).

In some countries they keep virtually all such people in jail. (Where, I think, they give them cigarettes...).

Surely there should be much more investment in: Better rewards for socially productive interventions. And in innovations that spread good norms and values - often called 'education' and 'faith'.

After all social innovations and values are 'economic public goods', and so are under-provided by free markets.

The Christian church proved to be a pretty good, and durable, way of doing that in the absence of an effective state. And states, too, need moral and ethical foundations.

How Many Prisoners in Jail is Enough?

Incarceration rates have been increasing in several western countries for the last few decades. Politicians in the UK are planning for another 5000 prison places (2008/9). Where will it end? What proportion of young males do we want to see in jail? There are other options.

While 'zero tolerance' may have reduced personal and property crime in the USA, it roughly doubled the prison population. Society becomes less secure, and nastier, as the cycle of offending and criminal justice goes on, while prisoner numbers continue to rise.

Approximately 1 out of 75 males of all ages in the USA are in jail (derived from DoJ) - and 1 out of 10 young males in some minority groups (mainly blacks). This proportion would be equivalent to 300,000 male prisoners in the UK - 4 times more than at present.

Should we simply jail all delinquents (the vast majority males) from the age of 17 to 35? This might equate to a prison population of 750,000 in the UK. Surely not - there are other options that are more efficient, and more humane and friendly.

Within a few years the vast majority of offenders are released (average jail sentences are much less than 2 years) - bringing with them bitterness at their treatment, and crime skills acquired in jail. Are we simply going to carry on locking up ever greater numbers of young men, and putting up with a more and more dysfunctional society?

There are better ways. In Iceland there were only 115 prisoners out of a population of 300,000 - or 1 out of 1,300 males in jail (OECD, 2006). At that sort level of crime it would be feasible to 'micro-manage' each offender with social workers (or community enforcer/motivators). Such a society would be a much nicer place to live than one where you have to lock up 1 out of 75 just to keep a lid on high rates of crime. Micro-management would be feasible in a service economy and, with less crime, would be cheaper than locking up so many.

It would be very cost-effective to address the motivations for crime, and lack of cohesive (efficacious) communities around the world, rather than massive expenditure on crime and 'criminal justice'. And, a lot could be done by correcting misapprehensions, lack of education, or opportunities, and gross inequalities.

Societies that succeed in reducing crime, rather than punishing ever more offenders, will be nicer ones to be part of (and much more humane).